They havn't. Argentina is still pushing hard to "reclaim" their alleged lost islands, and continue to ignore the simple fact that the islanders who...you know, actually LIVE there.....want no part of the Argentinian government and wish to stay citizens of the United Kingdom.

The only thing the current regime is doing differently is they are trying diplomatic and economic pressure to get what they want.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Of course finding oil and mineral wealth has NOTHING to do with ownership desire.

Nah. Couldn't be...

I'm sure that it also doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa Argentinian economy, the failure of their social state or their currency's inflationary death spiral. Because we've never EVER seen failing governments use a nationalist cause to distract the populace from woes at home.

Argentina is lining up all of South America to support it's claim. The talk continues to heat up and there would be no great surprise if it came to armed conflict once again. This is a question of Argentina's national honor as they see it. This time around I have to wonder how the UK could respond other than trying to call in their IOUs with the US.

The fact that the populace want nothing to do with Argentina is of no concern to Argentina. They are superior to just about everyone else. Just ask them and they try to insist that they are European. Who said the maps lied?

Mario, Ike99, loved to to play the Japanese and had venom to spare for the US and UK. He had an amazing warped point of view. If I remember properly he was a high school teacher in Buenos Aires. Was it history that he taught?

i'm a bit confused by Argentina ramping up again w/ their Malvinas thing. it's also a bit disappointing to me, that they do so. just t'other day i was reading about a new museum/memorial for their Falklands War dead, being created in a building that was a notorious detention/torture center during the Galtieri dictatorship.

OTOH, there's more to the Brit/Arg history than just the Falk/Malv dispute. British expeditions occupied BA in 1806, and Montevideo in 1807. Then in the 1850s, Britain got on the Argentinian's bad side again, by not helping repress the naval actions of a certain Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was sailing in support of the rebellion of Uruguay from Argentina. IOW, there's more historical bad blood between these two nations than most people realize.

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

Don't forget who was President at the time or, more importantly, who was SoS - Al "I'm in charge now" Haig. The US Policy was entirely screwed up. Haig tried to channel his inner Kissinger and avoid the war and make nice to the rest of the Americas. Having expended his political capitaol for no gain, Haig had to then find a reason to not openly support an important Ally. Hence the USSR will join in on Argentina's side if the US intervenes.

That by the way completely ignores the Monroe Doctrine which in its purist sense said the US should have instead fought along side the Argentines. In a 20th Century sense, Monroe's edict basically meat the only people allowed to bully the South Americans is the USA.

Conversely, if the US had taken a pro-UK stance from the get go, the Argentines may have folded. After all the USN could have put two or three CVBG with AWACS and F-14s off Port Stanley along with a half dozen attack boats. They then could have put a full Marine Division ashore in quick order with CAS. If the US had pushed harder for Thatcher, a lot of lives may have been saved. The price would have been loss of stature with the South Americans which would not have been that much because they all hate the Argentines anyway

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

Conversely, if the US had taken a pro-UK stance from the get go, the Argentines may have folded. After all the USN could have put two or three CVBG with AWACS and F-14s off Port Stanley along with a half dozen attack boats. They then could have put a full Marine Division ashore in quick order with CAS. If the US had pushed harder for Thatcher, a lot of lives may have been saved. The price would have been loss of stature with the South Americans which would not have been that much because they all hate the Argentines anyway

Which is why some of the smarter folks in the DoS desk for South America pushed for a neutural stance and just outside observance. After the failures of the previous three decades and the supposed growing influence of Soviets and Cuban style politics into Central/South America lead some of the folks in DoS to advise Haig to advise the President to speak loudly out against both sides and privately give assurances to the rest of the nations in S. America that if the Brits tried to come ashore on the mainland they would have been met with force. All in attempts to peddle soft power and start to swing some of the previous juntas and other tin pots back into America's realm of influcence. There are also very common rumors all amongst the US Navy and US Navy spy community about a CVBG just having left the Windward Islands early from a port visit and then hitting a "storm front" while transiting to Lebanon AOR forcing this carrier to dive south near the war zone with a full complement of SigInt birds (EA-3B Skywarriors and EA-6B Prowlers) to collect intel on the war zone. Ditto for rumors of early release of AIM-9L Sidewinders to the RAF about 18 months prior to the expected buy in exchange for some additional bennies.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

Adm. Woodward details the presence of Soviet 'sigint' trawlers at Ascension, where his flotilla was assembling for the voyage south. but those trawlers were only present for Sov 'sniffing' purposes, they were most certainly not aiding the Argentine effort. Let's remember that Galtieri's junta was virulently anti-Communist & lined up completely w/ contemporary US policy. IMO, both the US & USSR were unprepared for the Falklands flare-up, which had no place in either country's ColdWar stance, it was a local prob between US allies, the USSR had no horse in the race. the Argentinian military was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US, w/ French, German & UK additions.

the idea that USSR would've actively intervened in the Falklands conflict is laughable, as is the idea that the US would've (or could've) shown up in 'quick order' to prevent the initial Argentine descent on the Falklands & South Georgia. (2 or 3 CVBG + full USMC assault div w/ CAS, i say NFW).

some US policy (Haig's abortive diplomatic efforts notwithstanding) was essential to British efforts - SecDef Caspar Weinburger was golden, allowing British access to the airbase at Ascension, & providing supplies of the AIM-9L Sidewinder missile (19 kills from 20 launches).

so let's posit that the 'special relationship' trumped the Monroe Doctrine in this conflict. US diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict followed UN efforts, both were rejected by Thatcher's UK government. US military efforts were limited to base-access & ordnance supply to the the Brits, but did not extend to active intervention against the Argentine side.

Was down there a couple of years back. I think the Brits are a bit better prepared for things now but sustaining another campaign down there would be the trick. There is a new base which is designed to form the front end of an air-bridge and I am sure that there would be a very powerful land and air force there within 72 hours, but the RN has undergone some big cuts lately.

Adm. Woodward details the presence of Soviet 'sigint' trawlers at Ascension, where his flotilla was assembling for the voyage south. but those trawlers were only present for Sov 'sniffing' purposes, they were most certainly not aiding the Argentine effort. Let's remember that Galtieri's junta was virulently anti-Communist & lined up completely w/ contemporary US policy. IMO, both the US & USSR were unprepared for the Falklands flare-up, which had no place in either country's ColdWar stance, it was a local prob between US allies, the USSR had no horse in the race. the Argentinian military was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US, w/ French, German & UK additions.

the idea that USSR would've actively intervened in the Falklands conflict is laughable, as is the idea that the US would've (or could've) shown up in 'quick order' to prevent the initial Argentine descent on the Falklands & South Georgia. (2 or 3 CVBG + full USMC assault div w/ CAS, i say NFW).

some US policy (Haig's abortive diplomatic efforts notwithstanding) was essential to British efforts - SecDef Caspar Weinburger was golden, allowing British access to the airbase at Ascension, & providing supplies of the AIM-9L Sidewinder missile (19 kills from 20 launches).

so let's posit that the 'special relationship' trumped the Monroe Doctrine in this conflict. US diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict followed UN efforts, both were rejected by Thatcher's UK government. US military efforts were limited to base-access & ordnance supply to the the Brits, but did not extend to active intervention against the Argentine side.

I was not suggesting that my proposed alternative was possible. The Argentines were not dumb. They tried to play the Hemispheric Alliance card. The US with Nicaragua and communist uprisings in Costa Rica, Guatamela, and El Salvador was in a bad place. While no one outright supported them (besides Castro), they did have some sympathies within the Latin American community who all had axes to grind with European Colonialism. So I don't think Reagan really had a choice other than appearing neutral while backing the UK covertly. Any other stance would have undermined the pro-democracy (read anti-communist) efforts in Central America

I was only pointing out that direct US intervention may have led to fewer casualties for both sides.

BTW, from what I read, Haig was truly dispondant over his failed efforts. He really had a desire to leave his mark on history ala Kissinger/Carter

going from my fallible memory here, but from what i recall, the RN in '82 was a coupla' months shy of selling HMS Hermes to India, & standing down their 2 assault ships (Fearless & Intrepid), as well as reducing some land-combat formations, as a result of drastic budget-cuts & MoD desire to retain what forces they needed for NATO-oriented commitments.

which is to say, that if Argentina had delayed its descent on Las Malvinas by 6 or 8 weeks, Britain would've lacked the assets needed to re-take the Falklands, though they'd still have been able to use their SSNs to scourge the Argentinian Navy. HMS Conquerer sank the Belgrano, but refrained from attacking her escorts.

i'd imagine that some similar calculus exists to this day - Argentina could descend on the Falklands again, at the price of losing its navy.

Alexander Haig tried hard enough with his shuttle diplomacy - he racked up a lot of airmiles in a few days.

Ultimately the Falklands Crisis in 1982 was a failure of US diplomacy. Hindsight has been harsh on Haig's mediation attempts, but I tend to think that failure of diplomacy was ultimately always going to happen, since both Argentina and the UK were claiming sovereignty and self-determination and these were absolutely incompatible. A diplomatic solution could only have been reached if either or both sides were willing to compromise, but compromise was impossible because at the time both governments (the Galtieri government in Argentina, and the Thatcher government in the UK) were facing massive problems at home (in Argentina, a deepening recession, recent financial crises, a trade deficit, soaring unemployment; in the UK there was an economic downturn and Thatcher's radical economic policy was becoming extremely unpopular with Britain also entering recession) and as a consequence both governments' very continued existence was dependent on the outcome of Falklands Crisis.

This from an article by Jonathan Atherton:"CONCLUSIONHistorians now tend to agree that the failure of the Haig mission was inevitable. This failure was not however brought about by Britain or Argentina protecting their national honour, or in Britain's case defending its democratic principles. The overwhelming reason for the failure of the Haig mission is considerably more cynical. As the two world wars dramatically illustrate there is a tendency for economic crises and social strife to be solved by the flexing of international muscles. Governments who wage campaigns of popular outrage against external foes can effectively obscure internal domestic problems. Lord Carrington quite correctly stated in his memoirs, 'General Galtieri needed some sort of diversion to unite a discontented and long suffering Argentina'. The same, however, could just as easily be used to describe Thatcher and Britain's political situation in April 1982. It is hardly surprising that the Thatcher government leapt at an external diversion from its domestic woes. The main problem as far as diplomacy is concerned is that for both sides the Falklands War quickly became a winner-takes-all scenario with the very political survival of those in power at stake.

Any diplomatic settlement would depend on a high degree of compromise yet the political context with which the war was fought made such compromise impossible. Galtieri and Thatcher in effect staked their political careers on their stated preconditions of sovereignty and self-determination, two opposing and completely irreconcilable viewpoints. Whilst both sides made concessions that were not trivial, such concessions always steered clear of the central question of eventual sovereignty of the islands. No diplomatic settlement would have been possible unless either Galtieri or Thatcher had backed down from their stated preconditions. Considering such a retreat would have cost either their political careers, it is impossible to see how Haig could have mediated a diplomatic settlement that satisfied both parties and kept both Galtieri and Thatcher in power.

The role of the United States must also be considered. A diplomatic settlement would require a high degree of even-handedness. This could never be used to describe US attitudes to the issues at hand. The US persistently and publicly condemned the Argentine use of force, Haig also chose to make it abundantly obvious to the Junta that if war came then the US would back Britain. The essence of US diplomacy was to attempt to extract sufficient concessions from Argentina, so these could be made acceptable to Britain. Seemingly it never occurred to Haig to ask for equal concessions from both sides. Whilst Argentina bemoaned what they perceived as Haig’s blatant bias towards Britain, the British were just as frustrated with Haig because of his apparent neutrality. The result of Haig’s mediation was that neither side trusted each other and neither side was willing to accept the US as playing the part of an honest broker.

Haig’s final proposal on the 24th April was entrenched in compromise. Yet the underlying problem virtually defied solution through compromise. Haig’s solution was to ask both sides to retreat from their stated pre-conditions. Yet such a retreat could never have been acceptable to either side in view of what was at stake. To both sides diplomacy was preferable as a means of achieving their aims but not in an absolute sense. Both Thatcher and Galtieri would rather resort to force than back down and thus end their political careers. As a result of this, the Falklands crisis, the thorn in side of British foreign policy for several decades, was finally settled not by diplomacy, but by what we now call the Falklands War of 1982."

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

As much as I agree with the others who have posted below about the immediate causes being related to the failure in diplomacy, the underlying cause had a lot to do with us seeing ghosts of Soviet hegemoney behind every bush.

The 80's were an incredible time of overblown assumptions regarding Soviet capabilities. Our military industrial complex had a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of Soviet capabilities way beyond reality. I recall that the Defense Department used to publish a yearly assessment of Soviet capabilities in the form of a slick magazine chock full of photos of the lateset Soviet equipment. That it was all a house of cards and the various client conflicts through the era proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Soviet weaponry was, for the most part, a pale shadow of the American weaponry it copycatted was glossed over time and time again.

The competition between the two "systems" of government finally came to a head when Ronnie threw the cards on the table and challenged them to the old contest of "guns or butter". Which do you choose to produce, guns or butter? We proved that we had a resilient enough economy to produce both, even though it sent us into a level of debt that the progressive, pacifist non-militarists claimed we would never recover from, we succeeded in building both. The Soviets inability to afford both left them choosing guns over butter which produced the internal strife that eventually led to thier collapse. Ronnie Reagan, one of the greatest presidents in American history, won the Cold War hands down.

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

As much as I agree with the others who have posted below about the immediate causes being related to the failure in diplomacy, the underlying cause had a lot to do with us seeing ghosts of Soviet hegemoney behind every bush.

The 80's were an incredible time of overblown assumptions regarding Soviet capabilities. Our military industrial complex had a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of Soviet capabilities way beyond reality. I recall that the Defense Department used to publish a yearly assessment of Soviet capabilities in the form of a slick magazine chock full of photos of the lateset Soviet equipment. That it was all a house of cards and the various client conflicts through the era proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Soviet weaponry was, for the most part, a pale shadow of the American weaponry it copycatted was glossed over time and time again.

The competition between the two "systems" of government finally came to a head when Ronnie threw the cards on the table and challenged them to the old contest of "guns or butter". Which do you choose to produce, guns or butter? We proved that we had a resilient enough economy to produce both, even though it sent us into a level of debt that the progressive, pacifist non-militarists claimed we would never recover from, we succeeded in building both. The Soviets inability to afford both left them choosing guns over butter which produced the internal strife that eventually led to thier collapse. Ronnie Reagan, one of the greatest presidents in American history, won the Cold War hands down.

FYI, I was there in the 80s, so I know that. It's still insane that the Soviets would intervene.

We proved that we had a resilient enough economy to produce both, even though it sent us into a level of debt that the progressive, pacifist non-militarists claimed we would never recover from, we succeeded in building both. The Soviets inability to afford both left them choosing guns over butter which produced the internal strife that eventually led to thier collapse. Ronnie Reagan, one of the greatest presidents in American history, won the Cold War hands down.

So now 30 years later the debt is still there and growing. Perhaps Ronnie did beat the Soviets, but in the end perhaps the mindset that was introduced on the conservative side of the house of never ending defense spending will end up failing us in the end...but you know the old maxim never discuss politics among friends.

We proved that we had a resilient enough economy to produce both, even though it sent us into a level of debt that the progressive, pacifist non-militarists claimed we would never recover from, we succeeded in building both. The Soviets inability to afford both left them choosing guns over butter which produced the internal strife that eventually led to thier collapse. Ronnie Reagan, one of the greatest presidents in American history, won the Cold War hands down.

So now 30 years later the debt is still there and growing. Perhaps Ronnie did beat the Soviets, but in the end perhaps the mindset that was introduced on the conservative side of the house of never ending defense spending will end up failing us in the end...but you know the old maxim never discuss politics among friends.

As the gasoline gets thrown on the campfire...

That debt was almost completey wiped out by the time Clinton took office. In a time of a boom economy and we did have the resilience to bounce back. It's the seemingly engrained habit of profligate spending coupled with a an economy in the toilet that appears to be our current bane.

we've bankrupted ourselves buying plasma TV's.....and China is laughing all the way to the bank....that is till they realized that if we collapse economically so do they. Its a whole new ballgame now in the Global Economy.

Maybe FireFly the series got it right after all and we'll all be swearing in Chinese out in space while conversing in English.

Then again i can be haughty.....i just did the unthinkable for an American.....I paid off all my debt this month. (not counting my share of of the National debt of course )